Amendment to include recovery of possession based on post-suit cause of action should be allowed to avoid multiplicity.

The petitioner filed a suit for declaration on 29.05.2015 based on a Will

In May 2022, the petitioner filed an amendment application alleging that the defendants forcibly took possession in June 2019, thus seeking a decree for possession

The trial court (Additional Civil Judge, Farrukhabad) rejected the application on 23.02.2024, citing delay and the commencement of trial (framing of issues)

A revision petition against this order was also dismissed

The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 227, arguing the amendment was within the limitation period for a fresh suit and sought to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

1. Whether an amendment to include a relief for possession can be allowed when the cause of action arose during the pendency of a declaratory suit

2. Whether the framing of issues constitutes the "commencement of trial" sufficient to invoke the restrictive proviso of Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C.

3. Whether mere delay in filing an amendment application is a sufficient ground for its rejection

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), which allows amendments at any stage to determine the real questions in controversy

It relied on *Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu* (2002) 7 SCC 559, establishing that if a fresh suit for the relief is permissible, the same should be allowed via amendment to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and that mere delay is not a ground for refusal

Furthermore, per *Mohinder Kumar Mehra v. Roop Rani Mehra* (2018) 2 SCC 132 and *Chitranshi v. Rajnarayan Tripathi* 2025 (5) AWC 4867, "trial" normally commences with the leading of evidence, not merely the framing of issues

The Court reasoned that the proposed amendment did not alter the basic structure of the suit but merely changed the nature of the relief based on a subsequent cause of action

Critically, the Court found that since the alleged dispossession occurred in 2019 and the amendment was sought in 2022 (within the three-year limitation period), the plaintiff could have filed a separate suit; thus, denying the amendment would unfairly encourage multiple litigations

Regarding the procedural bar, the Court held that because no evidence had yet been led, the trial had not "commenced" in the context of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, making the trial court’s rejection erroneous

The Court also noted that the merits of the possession claim (disputed by defendants) should be decided during trial evidence, not at the amendment stage

The High Court quashed the orders dated 23.02.2024 and 03.07.2024

Exercising its power under Article 227, the Court allowed the amendment application directly to prevent further delay, directing the petitioner to carry out the amendment within three weeks

The petition was allowed